Touma Touma v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 04 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TOUMA TOUMA, No. 08-71028
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-993-293
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Touma Touma, a native and citizen of Syria, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Touma fails to challenge the agency’s dispositive
determination that his asylum claim was time-barred.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that any
discrimination Touma may have experienced on account of his Christian religion
did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012,
1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (record did not compel finding that Ukrainian Pentecostal
Christian who was “teased, bothered, discriminated against and harassed” suffered
from past persecution).
In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
Touma failed to establish a nexus between the persecution he fears from his
creditors or the Syrian government and a statutorily protected ground. See Ochoa
v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005) (persecution as a result of a debt
was not on account of a protected ground). Accordingly, Touma’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Touma failed to
establish a clear probability that he would be persecuted on account of his
Christian religion on return to Syria. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816-17
2 08-71028
(9th Cir. 2001) (“An applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened,
even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live in the
country without incident, . . . or when the applicant has returned to the country
without incident.”) (internal citations omitted).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Touma’s CAT
claim because he failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if
returned to Syria. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-71028